Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

In Texas, one of the state mammals is the armadillo, but the reason why escapes me because lots of folks consider them a nuisance, especially gardeners and home owners. There was a time when Charles Apelt got the notion to hollow out the carcass and use the hard shells to make into baskets. A tisket, a tasket, an armadillo basket... Personally, I don't like the idea very much. You'd think that will his business interest in them, he'd have hunted the armadillos to extinction. Instead, they are thriving, and even found in new areas.The armadillo (Spanish for "speed bump") looks like slow-moving speed bumps I've encountered in Michigan and New York: the opossum. But even though they have a superficial resemblance (sans body armor), they're not closely related. The opossum is a marsupial, the armadillo is a mammal. And no, the 'dillo is not a rodent, like some people think. One other thing that the two critters have in common is that some people eat the things. I don't recommend it, since some 'dillos carry leprosy, and you can get sick if you don't do it right. Besides, I think they're kind of cute. Except maybe the screaming hairy armadillo, which reminds me of Haywire the Stalker and his annoying friends in the atheopath clown car.

They're problematic for fans of universal common descent evolution. The fossil record does not show significant change, and their diversity supports creationary contentions that they diversified from one armadillo kind. In addition, they have unique defense mechanisms, such as the ability to burrow quickly (which protects the soft underside) and frustrate predators with the hard stuff. Some even roll themselves into a ball. Hey, so do the roly-poly pillbugs. Someone's going to call that "convergent evolution", I'm sure.

Evolutionists say that the fossil ‘record’ of armadillos ‘begins’ in South America—but such long-age interpretation of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers leaves them puzzling over the origin of armadillos. They have ventured some tentative guesses about the ancestry of the armadillo, but not very convincingly. The uniqueness of the backbone of the xenarthran family, a class of animals including armadillos as well as anteaters and sloths, makes it difficult to establish evolutionary relationships beyond the xenarthrans.

It is very significant to note that the plates of the ‘shell’ (called scutes) were fully formed in their ‘earliest’ find in the fossil ‘record’. Evolutionists are disappointed that there is not a developmental ‘history’ of the scutes in the fossils, but this is precisely what creationists would expect—fully formed fossils with no record of evolutionary history.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Darwin's Brigands™ are continuing the old bait 'n' switch trick with terminology again. (Again? More like, still.) When you have a discussion with these hijackers of science, you have to nail down your definitions. Evolution has many meanings, and when you're talking to someone who believes in scum-to-stalker evolution, watch out that he or she does not point to variation or "change over time" as evidence for his belief system — changes are not evidence that Darwin was right, but they get sneaky by equivocating on the word evolution. Very disingenuous.

As in other cases, evolutionists are all het up about a study in the genetics of salivary protein, and the variations thereof. They call it "evolution", but that is nowhere near the truth. Life, the universe, and everything were created. Despite all the efforts of secularists, they cannot change this truth, nor can they change how the facts refute their version of evolution and support biblical creation. The idea that slight changes in salivary protein genetics proves evolution ain't worth spit. They use deceit because the truth does not work.

Whether discussing neo-Darwinian evolution, emergent evolution, or extended synthesis, these versions of evolution are all typically defined as simply change over time. Yet this vague definition leaves many unanswered questions. What types of change? What length of time? What causes these changes?

Each of these evolution versions is offered as an explanation for the origin and diversity of all life on earth, but examples of mere change offer little insight into the genetic events involved. Only specific types of changes will provide the evolutionary mechanism necessary to account for all of life’s complexity and diversity.

Monday, May 29, 2017

According to deep time adherents, some celestial objects just won't act their (assigned) ages. There are many links on this site alone to how planets, moons, and whatnot are showing signs of youth instead of millions of years. Secular cosmologists keep on plugging away with their narrative, even when they repeatedly encounter observed evidence that refutes their predictions. Probably because they find recent creation detestable, despite the evidence. They continue to present things they know are untrue, even according to their mythology.

Beginning with Big Bang and deep time presuppositions, astronomers and cosmologists are baffled when galaxies that are supposed to be very old have "stopped forming stars". Not that anyone has actually seen stars forming, we're only presented with presumptions based on their paradigms. Still, there is yet another game changer where the evidence refutes cosmic evolutionary expectations, but the same old song will still be played. Ya wanna dance?

When you see the words “challenging” and “requires substantial revision” in the abstract, you know trouble is coming.

Eleven astronomers from five continents are unanimous: this galaxy doesn’t fit current theory. Here’s what they found, as announced in Nature.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Way back in the olden days, we had a small dog, but my parents were not overly concerned with protecting me from the unsanitary beast. Nor were they all that worried about unsanitary cats, once they became part of the family. Proper hygiene was in order, and that was enough. (By the way, some people have scared pregnant women into avoiding cats, but the danger there is mitigated by taking care when changing the litter box.) I know people who would want to have "kisses" from their German Shepherd and have her lick their faces, even on the lips. I can't do that.

So, Snoopy licked Lucy's face? He is probably doing her some good. Darwinists appeal to "co-evolution" to explain these things, but it's a "scientific explanation" pulled out of thin air. The fact is, certain bacteria were created for our benefit, and we were created to use them.

Many people react with revulsion when a dog licks their face—especially babies. Such a reaction is justifiable based on the unsanitary habits of Rover. However, recent research supports the idea that babies actually benefit from living with dogs.

. . .

These authors approach human-microbe relationships from an evolutionary “survival of the fittest” worldview where life develops through a long progression of deadly struggles. The host-microbe relationship is regularly portrayed in warlike terms, which explains why puppy microbes are labeled “pathogens” even though they do not cause disease. The system that links the infant to the beneficial microbes is also labeled an “immune” system which conveys a defensive concept rather than functioning as the comprehensive regulatory interface it actually is.

Friday, May 26, 2017

You may find this difficult to believe, but some owlhoots present the development of a tadpole into a frog as an example of evolution. Now, they're using the vague definition of evolution as change over time, and then implying that this change illustrates all life evolving from a common ancestor. Not hardly!

Mr. Jeremy Fisher was once a tadpole, a critter that people sometimes go "hunting" and raising. It undergoes drastic changes and becomes a croaking hopper that eats flies. (If you get the right one, it'll sing and dance for you.) The changes it goes through are quite dramatic, actually. Everything is changed and rearranged through and through. How does it know how to do this, and how do the changes happen the right way, in the right order? The Creator put the intricate design plans into it's DNA, which defies changes-by-chance evolution.

Never mind about a frog to a prince—doesn’t a frog show evolution happening within its own life cycle? From a fish-like tadpole (complete with gills) the ‘frog baby’ rapidly ‘morphs’ its way to a brand new life-style! The mouth widens, the tail dissolves, the fly-catching ‘bungy’ tongue develops, nostrils form, and bulging eyes migrate around the head. Lastly, when the lungs mature and four legs have grown, the graduating tadpole celebrates by hopping right out of the water and living on land.

This amazing transformation (metamorphosis) is a lot more than skin deep. Virtually every organ and body system is radically reworked.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

It is an established fact that everywhere we turn, we are assaulted with remarks about evolution that assume it to be an undisputed, every scientist in lockstep, fact. Whether it's an animated feature for children, advertisements, nature documentaries that invariably give homage to Darwin, proselytes of evolutionism on the web, or many other possibilities, evolution is confidently asserted.

We expect vagaries in science terminology from cinema, music, or whatever. Unfortunately, it is becoming more common in mainstream scientific journals to read things like, "Scientists think...perhaps...it is thought...maybe", and then have erroneous, unscientific conclusions pawned off as being conclusive. Is that ethical? The only thing conclusive is the written Word of God, who told us how he did the creating. Supplanters who attempt to replace God really do not know what happened in the distant past. An article about the development of instinct is quite telling.

Why does America’s most prestigious scientific journal put up with a story like, ‘somehow it evolved in an ancestor’?

The word ‘somehow’ appears twice in this summary on Phys.org of a Perspective piece in Science about the evolution of instincts:

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

People who want us to believe in fish-to-firefighter evolution have been doing some finagling about the development of gills and, ultimately, where we came from. One indicator that bad science is being presented is when the question is begged. In this case, the hoary canard, "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" was presumed. Also, evolution is used to support abortion, since the unborn child supposedly goes through a fish stage with "gill slits".

A study of fish embryos and gill development assembled some good data. Unfortunately, the study was used to prop up evolution. The reasoning was faulty, beginning with the presupposition of Darwinism. They assume that embryos show their evolutionary stages, and ignore the facts that superficial resemblances to gill slits in creatures are imaginary. Those things that appear to be gill slits are actually an important part of development.

Can a landmark discovery about how fish embryos grow their gills connect us firmly to roots under the sea? Cambridge University zoologists J. Andrew Gillis and Olivia R.A. Tidswell think so.

Fish use gills to extract oxygen from water. Evolutionists maintain that vertebrates without gills—like us—have gills “present as vestiges in our own embryology.”1 (More on that below.) But where did gills come from in the first place? Enquiring evolutionists want to know! To find out, they look for similarities in the gills of different sorts of fish embryos. They hope to thereby unveil the gills of the common evolutionary ancestor of all fish and to gain a clue about how very different groups of fish—jawless, bony, and cartilaginous—diverged.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Every once in a while, an unbelievable story told around a campfire or in a tavern is based in reality:

I'm tellin' ya, we was sleepin' below deck in the boat, see. Woke up the next mornin', and breakfast delivered itself right smack on the deck. It was a squid. Musta flew up there!

Don't be too hasty to dismiss the seafarer's experience: squid do fly. They're not just jumping (breaching) like "devil rays", or doing some impressive gliding like flying fish. While it's not as free and easy as a bird, some species of squid take to the air in their version of powered flight. Specifically, it's jet-propelled flight, and it's not just a hop, either.

This is clear evidence of creation, since all of the pieces had to be in place and functioning at the same time, or they would be meaningless in the squid, possibly even harmful. Some tinhorns are so locked into their cult of naturalism, they insist that even though there is no mechanism for evolution and the logical conclusion is that this is a product of the Creator's intelligent design, evolution did it. Despite ideologues, the evidence is compelling, and the flying squid activity is a marvel.

Many a seafarer has observed schools of flying fish suddenly breaking the ocean’s surface and gliding at great speed just above the water for short distances, using their pectoral fins as wings. However, mariners’ reports of flying squid similarly soaring above the waves were generally regarded sceptically. But no longer, with the scientific community increasingly documenting the phenomenon.

So sailors finding squid high-and-dry on their vessel’s deck in the morning (as many do) can now more boldly say how they likely got there: many species of squid can, and do, fly.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Riddle me this: What is the size of a chicken, has drumstick-shaped legs, feather follicles, slender tail, and feather follicles?"That's a dinosaur, ya idjit!" Well, no. Although proponents of dinosaur-to-bird evolution try very hard to see feathers in dinosaur fossils and ignore bird features, even if they did find a dinosaur with feathers, it would only show that a dinosaur had feathers and not prove that they evolved into birds. They tend to make outlandish extrapolations like that.

At any rate, further research on a feathered dinosaur candidate shows that it had feathers and many features found in modern birds. There were some other features that we don't see very much in modern birds today. Still, it's another bit of wishbone — I mean, wishful — thinking that didn't pan out for evolutionists, which is no surprise for creationists, and probably no surprise for those evolutionists who reject the dino-to-bird story. They really should slow down before theorizing and then having to retract their speculations. Better still, realize that birds and dinosaurs were created separately.

Most people, when they see something new, quickly try to categorize it. They want to associate it with something familiar. They say, “That’s an odd piece of jewelry,” or “That’s a rock.” But getting careless with this generally helpful tendency can lead to error, like when the “jewelry” turns out to be a memory stick on a lanyard or the “rock” turns out to be a piece of man-made building material. So, what about people who categorize certain fossils as “feathered dinosaurs”? New descriptions of the Chinese fossil Anchiornis give reasons to rethink this popular categorization.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Atheists will tell you that they have no need for religion because they believe in reason and science. If you point out that atheism is a religion, they tend to get on the prod, which shows their ignorance of religion and philosophy. Further, secularists have hijacked science from its biblical basis, and argue from their a priori presuppositions, one of which is the arbitrary assertion that science must be based upon atheistic methodological and philosophical naturalismonly. Such assertions are irrational and lead to faulty conclusions.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.Also, note the question-begging straw man in the assertion.

Secularists frequently generalize about creationists, claiming that our explanation is "GodDidIt", so there is no need for scientific investigation. This is a lie. There are many creationary scientists who want to learn what makes things work, even how God did something. They take this straw man argument further and say that we use "God of the Gaps" (that is, gaps in our knowledge). Listen up, Pilgrim: everyone has gaps in their knowledge except our Creator, and misrepresenting how we seek to fill those gaps is counterproductive and even bigoted. In fact, they use "Evolution of the Gaps", being certain of evolution and having blind faith in it even though the evidence is lacking or even contrary to what is being discussed.Science cannot work under an atheistic worldview, which is irrational and incoherent. It can only exist in a biblical worldview, where laws of logic and the constancy of nature make sense. Atheists have some serious problems with their faith-based "Science of the Gaps" approach, especially when it comes to the first cause. If you study on it, you'll see that science does not support atheism.

Atheists often use science to argue that God does not exist because He is no longer required. God was a convenient idea that answered any problem and could never be disproven. In times past, God was needed for the things we couldn’t explain—He was God of the gaps in our knowledge. Now science is closing gaps in our knowledge, and as those gaps disappear, so does God.

Proponents of this argument complain that ‘God did it’ is an unscientific and unreasonable explanation for observations that we make. Theirs is a strong argument against superstitious beliefs in God—i.e. using the supernatural to explain the unknown. When the supernatural is used merely to plug gaps, it will of course disappear when the gaps disappear. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder and lightning, because discovering electricity provided a natural explanation. We don’t need Poseidon either, because we now know the wind and moon cause waves and tides.

I hope you will read the rest of this extremely interesting and enlightening article. To do so, just click on "Science of the gaps".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, May 19, 2017

Some of y'all have been watching too many movies. I hope you put what I call "the eww factor" on hold so you can appreciate the amazing design of a critter that some folks love to hate: the bat. You may want to read this article on bat myths and facts. I find bats fascinating, and could make this post unnecessarily long with remarks about how beneficial they are, that some people set out bat houses, and so on.

Stories on the evolution of bats strike out. The bat is recalcitrant when it comes to secularists' guesses about its origin. Instead, it is a testimony of creation and intricate design. It's not a mouse with wings, and not a rodent at all. Those wings are very intricately designed, as is the flight system itself.Scientists are studying the vampire bat's saliva, draculin (great word, some scientists show humor) in hopes of helping stroke victims. There is also work being done to make robot bats! This is extremely challenging, since the bat flight system is loaded with specified complexity endowed by the Creator.

Researchers have been working on Bat Bot (or B2), a robotic lightweight flier designed to mimic the incredible aerial ability of a bat. Thin silicone wings are stretched over a carbon fiber frame, and a tiny onboard computer, five motors, and sensors allow the robot to fly autonomously. This unique design, copied from God’s creation, allows the Bat Bot to twist, cruise, dive, and maneuver in ways similar to a bat.

Bat Bot clocks in at just 3.3 ounces with an 18.5-inch wingspan. It can flap its membranous wings in sync as well as fold each wing and move each leg independently. Eventually researchers hope B2 will be able to hang upside down and perch right side up, just like its live counterpart. It can currently fly a distance of less than 100 feet. However, unlike the real thing, B2 can’t land on its own yet. It still lands on a net to protect its sensitive electronics.

The Miller-Urey experiment was saddled up and ridden hard as "proof" that life could have happened by chance, but it proved next to nothing. Using intelligently-designed equipment in a controlled environment based on the now-abandoned "reducing atmosphere" concept, the researchers obtained some amino acids. These building blocks of life were caught in a trap and removed from the toxic environment, which invalidates the experiment. (Many images on the web conveniently leave out the trap part, or neglect to label it.) Some owlhoots make excuses that maybe perhaps somehow there were natural traps on Earth, but they do not provide evidence for such speculations. Let's step back a mite. Suppose the experiments were legitimate, and the amino acids could be produced in this imaginary atmosphere. What then? They had a long way to go, and there are many other factors to consider. No, the logical conclusion is that life originated with God, just like he said in his written Word.

In 1953, the same year that DNA’s double helix structure was discovered, a young graduate student named Stanley Miller sparked some gases and formed amino acids. These are the building blocks of proteins, a major component of living cells. So thousands of newspapers worldwide erroneously reported that he had, in essence, created life in a test-tube. This experiment became textbook orthodoxy.

However, textbooks tend to present alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution without critical discussion. Unless students consult outside sources, they often over-value the connection between organic molecules and life. Bold claims such as ‘organic molecules could have arisen on a lifeless Earth’ tend to mislead students into believing that organic molecules are life. However, ‘organic’ does not mean the molecules are alive, but simply refers to any molecule that contains the element carbon.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

When scientists commence to assigning species classifications, the dividing lines get a mite blurry. Scientists occasionally have difficulty if a critter belongs to a separate species. One of they key points is if an organism can reproduce sexually. So, why are some things classified as different species if they can interbreed?

Creationists refer to the biblical phrase createdkind, which is similar to the family classification. All of the varieties of dog, such as the little yap dog, police dog, dingo, wolf — all are descended from a single dog kind, probably a wolf. The quest for nonexistent evolutionary history of bears was the impetus for sequencing the genomes of four bear species. Instead of supporting evolutionism, the results are more in keeping with creationary models. After all, the bears can hybridize, so even Darwinists are wondering if they're fouling up with their classifications.

The world-wide variations on bears could have come from one original type.It has been known that Alaskan brown bears can hybridize with polar bears. The resulting mixed breeds, sometimes called ‘pizzlies’ or ‘cappucino bears’, were thought to be rare. Now, in a surprising study from Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, scientists have found that mixed breeds of bears are not as rare as they had assumed:

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Exoplanets (extra-solar planets) are simply planets outside our own solar system. The first confirmed exoplanets were discovered around a pulsar in 1992 by radio astronomers, but we don't know a great deal about them. In 1995, the first exoplanet around a star similar to the sun, 51 Pegasi b, was discovered. It's a big one, half the size of Jupiter, which is the largest planet in our own neck of the woods, so to speak. Getting any indication of their existence is difficult, and any pictures are the result of imagination, not observation. Still, astronomers have put notches on their collective belts for over 3,000 of the things. Probably quite a few more out there.

It's reasonable to expect that, if we get good views of exoplanets and their stars, they will have some of the quirks we see around us. After all, secular theories of solar system formation do not hold together, as evidenced by youthful action of various objects, the retrograde rotation of Uranus and Venus (those mavericks go opposite everyone else), magnetic fields such as creationist Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted in our own solar system, and more observations that startle devotees of evolutionary cosmology. (Know why your predictions don't work, gang? You have the wrong starting point. The universe was created, and created recently.) We can expect to see evidence of recent creation in exoplanets. The article linked below tells us some of the ways that exoplanets are detected, as well as more details on what creationists can expect.

In the last two decades, astronomers have discovered over 3,000 planets orbiting other stars. These are called extra-solar planets, or exo-planets, and they’ve caused a lot of excitement and speculation. What do we really know about these distant planets, and what is their significance for biblical creation?

Astronomers long suspected that stars might have orbiting planets just as the sun does. However, it’s nearly impossible to observe something as small and faint as an exo-planet next to the bright glare of its host star. So, astronomers have relied primarily on indirect methods of discovery.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Time for another creature that most of us detest, but has some interesting information when it comes to creation and evolution: horseflies (or horse-flies).

"Why do they call them horseflies, Cowboy Bob? They're nowhere near as big as a horse."

That's because they're big Chicago Cubs fans, and do a great deal of shouting at the games, so their voices —

"Fallacy of ambiguity on the words horse and hoarse."

Good call, you're learning. Horseflies got their name because they bother horses. And livestock. And humans. Like mosquitoes, the female horsefly bites to get blood. Since this nasty thing is indiscriminate and persistent in its painful biting, it also can spread disease, so you should treat the bites. (They're sometimes called gadflies because of their annoyance, much like some anti-creationists I could name.) Don't be expecting to pull up stakes to escape them, since they're on most of the planet.

Over yonder in southeast Africa, the larvae burrow into the mud. But mud dries, so how can the unpleasant thing survive? By making a chamber around itself. Apparently, this behavior is unique. While creationists say that the Designer equipped them with this ability, evolutionist nature worshipers are giving credit to their god of evolution, which has apparently chosen to bestow this method of survival upon the horsefly. Hail Darwin, blessed be!

He wrote a detailed description, and sent specimens, to his long-time friend E.B. Poulton, an Oxford University professor and fellow of the British Royal Society. Poulton judged ‘this elaborate adaptation’ in the larva of a fly to be ‘so remarkable and novel’ as to warrant immediate communication to the Royal Society, which published Lamborn’s findings in one of its scientific journals in early 1930.

Years later, George McGavin, a well-known Oxford entomology professor, came across the story. He described the unusual behaviour of Tabanus as an ‘ingenious trick’ which, he said, ‘is literally unique to this one genus of horsefly’.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

by Cowboy Bob SorensenAbout halfway through an episode of The Briefing (you can listen or read the transcript here), Dr. Mohler lassoed my attention with remarks about Dr. Stephen Hawking and about Time magazine. The subject was threats to the survival of humanity. Some people think that meeting up with aliens would be bad medicine, and not just coming here illegally, getting welfare, stealing our jobs, and so on. No, they might commence to raiding or even eating us. (Indeed, Carl Sagan thought that issuing cyanide pills for first alien contact was a good idea.) Stephen Hawking is also off the rails, even more than when he said that in regards to extraterrestrials, we should "keep our heads low".

Now Dr. Hawking is saying we gotta light a shuck out of here within 100 years if we're gonna survive. Naturally, he plays the climate change card, as well as several other disasters. In addition, he is still afraid of space aliens and artificial intelligence — especially fearful of AI, because it can evolve faster than us. The Time magazine article has a whole passel of assumptions that are supposed to make us feel better about the chances of being invaded or eaten by space bugs, that it's not too likely for them to behave badly. Mayhaps people remember the War of the Worlds novel and some of the movie versions, where the uglies feasted on human blood. Or that Damon Knight story "To Serve Man" (later, a Twilight Zone episode) where a book about first contact had ambiguity on the word serve, and was actually a cookbook, so we should dial back that SETI stuff. But we shouldn't be afraid of being on the menu because aliens are too unlike us. The first assumption is that aliens exist. Second, there are assumptions about alien needs, desires, and so forth. All of this stuff is based on atheistic evolutionary presuppositions within science philosophies rooted in their religion of naturalism. Nobody knows that ETs exist, nobody has seen one, and SETI has been a waste of money. (Of course, lack of evidence in SETI is interpreted favorably because silence is what they expect. Yes, that's "science" for some folks.) Also see "A SETI-back for Evolution". Even if aliens did exist (which I deny), they were not created in God's image. The world is indeed going to end, but it's in the Creator's timetable, as he has shown us in his written Word. There's still time left for repentance and salvation, but don't count on tomorrow being there for you.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, May 12, 2017

In 1974, Donald Johanson and his team found some bones of an Australopithecus afarensis and named it Lucy, inspired by the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamons". Evolutionists got themselves worked up into a lather, claiming that this extinct ape (which may or may not have had kaleidoscope eyes) was a part of our family tree. The critter was carted around for idolatrous adoration by the faithful, who acted like some folks over the Vatican Splendors exhibit.

Fundamentalist evolutionists proclaim this alleged link as conclusive evidence and consensus for their worldview, but conveniently neglect not only the controversy that existed from the discovery of A. afarensis (including feuds between Johanson and the Leakeys), but also significant facts (such as the differences between ape and human feet). After all, facts interfere with proselytizing and arguing from materialistic presuppositions, which can be seen in this video (I think it's from 2007, but still contains relevant information). Sure do seem desperate to deny the work of our Creator, even when the evidence refutes evolutionary claims, don't they?

Human evolution has consistently been shown to be without scientific or biblical merit. Although a parade of supposed transitions are displayed in every conceivable outlet, non-Darwinists maintain that the links between people and our alleged ape-like ancestors are—missing.Perhaps the premier and most popular purported evolutionary relative of man is Australopithecus afarensis, or southern ape of Afar—better known as Lucy. Several hundred pieces of fossilized bone were discovered in east Africa by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson and graduate student Tom Gray in 1974. Lucy is dated by evolutionists to be 3.75 to 3 million years old, and evolutionists have stated her line “probably evolved directly from [Australopithecus] anamensis.”How are creationists to respond to this compelling creature that supposedly links us to non-human ancestors millions of years ago?

Thursday, May 11, 2017

One of the most frequent bits of "evidence" presented for particles-to-podiatrist evolution is the similarities in locomotion between humans and apes. If you cognate on it a spell, you'll notice that apes walk on all fours most of the time while humans don't cotton to getting around that way. We also have a variety of styles for walking if we desire or need to use them. Have you ever seen a chimpanzee playing hopscotch?

Like attention to Lucy the Failed Transitional Form shows, a great deal of attention has been given to show how humans and apes are related. There are very significant differences in foot structure. Of course, the crew down at the Propaganda Mill will be putting the newest research into the spin cycle —

"Mixed metaphor, Cowboy Bob!"

I like those on occasion. Darwinists will try to spin the facts to their advantage and keep evolution looking favorable. They do that a lot.

Anyway, our feet were made for walking upright, theirs are not. We were created on the same day, and created as different creatures, despite evolutionary assertions.

Among living primates, only humans walk efficiently and easily on two legs. And many evolutionists believe bipedal locomotion was the springboard for our braininess. Are our feet the foundational distinction between knuckle-walking apes and us? How did we learn to walk this way? Enquiring evolutionists want to know!

When trying to parse out just how humans evolved a walk unlike that of our supposed chimpanzee cousins, evolutionary scientists like to compare our feet and ankles. They are similar, each with 26 bones, but they bend and flex in different ways while walking. A new study comparing the feet of humans and chimps during bipedal locomotion has revealed surprising facts about the way our feet move. Some of these paradoxical and hitherto unappreciated features do not fit easily into conventional evolutionary ideas about our walk up the evolutionary ladder.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Ever since way back when, mankind has looked at the heavens and wondered what's up there, and some had notions of actually going there. In the 20th century and extending into nowadays, progress has been significant. While space probes are impressive in their own right, having men land on the moon and operate space stations is foudroyant. I reckon it's human nature to want to go further.

Mind you, Earth can be considered a mighty large spacecraft itself. It was put here by the Creator for a reason, and we were designed to live on it. Significant difficulties exist for protracted space flight, such as collisions with objects, radiation, and other things. Two worth highlighting are the psychological difficulties and the physical problems of being without gravity.

Through the imagination, we can soar through distant galaxies. Sooner or later, physical reality hits home.

Amazing, isn’t it, that space travelers in the movies can walk normally and breathe the air no matter what planet they land on. It may save money for Hollywood, but is it realistic? A couple of articles suggest otherwise. For better or worse, we humans are stuck here.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

One of the strangest critters in the cosmos is called a quasar. The name is short for quasi-stellar radio source, but I like the sound of quasar. They were detected by the interference they made in transatlantic telephone lines (because in the olden days, pioneers in covered wagons didn't have good signals for their cell phones, so they had to use transatlantic phone lines instead, and quasars caused problems in the calls). I was joking with you about the covered wagons thing, but there really was interference in transatlantic phone lines. In the 1930s, a physicist with Bell Telephone found the interference was coming from our own Milky Way galaxy. In the 1950s, the problem children were identified.

Artist's impression of a quasar in galactic dustCredit: NASA/ESA/G.Bacon, STScI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Quasars are thought to be the very bright and "loud" part of some galaxies, probably caused by black holes in the center. These things have been baffling for a mighty long time, and problematic for Big Bang cosmology. A newer problem for secular views is that they change their form (including dimming and a change in redshifts). Some scientists think that quasars are "early" galaxies that become more standard later on, but the changes seen do not fit their paradigm. According to cosmic evolution, the changes should take thousands or millions of years, but are happening in extremely short times. This sort of thing fits nicely with biblical creationist views.

Quasars are very high redshift astronomical objects with broad emission line (BEL) spectra. The latter is very different to that in the usual ‘normal’ galaxies. This means the objects’ redshifts and BEL spectra can be used to identify them.And because of their high redshifts they are assumed to be very distant, very luminous active galaxies with super-massive black holes at their hearts, powering them to emit prodigious amounts of radiation over all wavebands of the electromagnetic spectrum.Most of the high redshift objects in the universe are quasars. The redshifts of galaxies and quasars when interpreted within big bang cosmology—the greater the redshift the greater the distance—means that the most distant objects are seen at a time when the universe was youngest.Following big bang thinking, quasars are then considered to be just galaxies in some early stage of development—back closer in time to the big bang—than the usual spiral and elliptical galaxies we might see with much lower redshifts.

Monday, May 8, 2017

Down yonder at Deception Pass, just past the Yellow Dog Creek a mite from the Darwin Ranch, you'll come to the Evolution Propaganda Mill. If you go to visit, they'll be less ornery if you bring cookies. One of the most successful products of evolutionary propaganda is the idea that humans and chimps are somewhere around 98 percent similar in the genome, therefore, evolution is true and there is no Creator God. That's how atheistic reasoning works.

How did we get to that point? Well, sequencing even a simple genome is actually quite difficult and takes computers with some horsepower. Working with humans...oh, boy. The chimpanzee genome is a tricky beast in its own right, and the genome isn't fully figured out yet. Original sequencing was done with inferior equipment and had heavy contamination with human DNA. Also, circular reasoning was involved because Darwinists assumed common-ancestor evolution. Add bad reasoning and incomplete science and you get the claim that humans and chimps are so similar. New research from a creationary scientist lowers the similarity quite a few points. But, similarities in the genome exist. Why not? There are similarities in the genome of humans with sea sponges, too. Similarities exist because the Designer didn't see a need to start over and make everything totally different, just like we do with our designs, you savvy?

“The DNA of humans is 98% similar to chimpanzees.” Who hasn’t heard that claim before? It’s usually stated as a settled fact and quoted to prove indisputably that we share a common ancestor.

But what does this kind of statement really entail, and how do we really know how similar one creature’s DNA is to another? The answers from my field of research—genetics—might surprise you.